Maybe a large box of baby wipes to wipe the egg off your face would be more appropriate?

Haven't finished with you yet, got more important things in life to be doing at the moment.

Maybe you should tell me why government statistics for UK state 0 animals used in cosmetic testing..? And maybe you should read up on why the 1 tonne was implemented

Pathetic.

I can tell you why the UK statistics state 0 animals used in cosmetic testing and the reason has not changed since the last time I explained it or the time before. The substances used in cosmetics and other products are tested on the other products using those licenses and the pure cosmetic testing required is done elsewhere. I might add the testing elsewhere is not required to meet any animal welfare regulations in the UK either, so those tests can be less controlled than if they were undertaken in the UK. Do you grasp the change in accounting on testing does not always equate to an elimination of testing? If the the British have done the right thing in confusing you so well.

As for the 1 tonne implementation, it clearly was a regulatory cut off point chosen for some possibly arbitrary reason. If you believe you have information on it providing a reference link would have been the way to go. You seem lax in the ability to provide rational comments supported by references related to the comment. Your position suffers for this inability.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

That was the point being made and the whole context of that portion of the discussion concerning toxicity testing on compounds which were used in other applications in addition to the possible cosmetic uses. You did understand the discussion on the multiple uses and the testing would be required for those uses?

The link you provided does not relate to the current discussion on the change in the CLP supposedly eliminating the need for toxicity testing.

I am beginnig to wonder if you have any idea of what has been said, but are running on pure assumptions.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, if you can show where toxicity testing is no longer required for products sold in the EU you will have made a point .... if not you will have performed on a par with your peers.

From Thursday afternoon, in case you missed it .....

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

That was the point being made and the whole context of that portion of the discussion concerning toxicity testing on compounds which were used in other applications in addition to the possible cosmetic uses. You did understand the discussion on the multiple uses and the testing would be required for those uses?

The link you provided does not relate to the current discussion on the change in the CLP supposedly eliminating the need for toxicity testing.

I am beginnig to wonder if you have any idea of what has been said, but are running on pure assumptions.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, if you can show where toxicity testing is no longer required for products sold in the EU you will have made a point .... if not you will have performed on a par with your peers.

That was the point being made and the whole context of that portion of the discussion concerning toxicity testing on compounds which were used in other applications in addition to the possible cosmetic uses. You did understand the discussion on the multiple uses and the testing would be required for those uses?

The link you provided does not relate to the current discussion on the change in the CLP supposedly eliminating the need for toxicity testing.

I am beginnig to wonder if you have any idea of what has been said, but are running on pure assumptions.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, if you can show where toxicity testing is no longer required for products sold in the EU you will have made a point .... if not you will have performed on a par with your peers.

From Thursday afternoon, in case you missed it .....

I think you need to read page 4 Mr ST.

I did, there was nothing there related to what I was asking. There is no reference to the CLP or general testing requirements at all.

I think you are confused.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

That was the point being made and the whole context of that portion of the discussion concerning toxicity testing on compounds which were used in other applications in addition to the possible cosmetic uses. You did understand the discussion on the multiple uses and the testing would be required for those uses?

The link you provided does not relate to the current discussion on the change in the CLP supposedly eliminating the need for toxicity testing.

I am beginnig to wonder if you have any idea of what has been said, but are running on pure assumptions.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, if you can show where toxicity testing is no longer required for products sold in the EU you will have made a point .... if not you will have performed on a par with your peers.

From Thursday afternoon, in case you missed it .....

The whole idea of CLP is for safety assessment taken from the long list of already assessed chemicals the cosmetic industry can use without the need to test. The 100kg regulation was upped to 1000kg as part of the process.... The UK have finished giving out licences for cosmetic testing within the UK.

"The first milestone was September 2004 when a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products was imposed in Europe. The European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this and in the UK animal testing has not taken place on both cosmetic products (since 1997) and their ingredients (since 1998). Voluntary initiatives by the UK cosmetics industry to surrender all licences were followed by announcements from the Home Office[1] that no more licences for cosmetics testing would be issued."

That was the point being made and the whole context of that portion of the discussion concerning toxicity testing on compounds which were used in other applications in addition to the possible cosmetic uses. You did understand the discussion on the multiple uses and the testing would be required for those uses?

The link you provided does not relate to the current discussion on the change in the CLP supposedly eliminating the need for toxicity testing.

I am beginnig to wonder if you have any idea of what has been said, but are running on pure assumptions.

Wayne Stollings wrote:

So, if you can show where toxicity testing is no longer required for products sold in the EU you will have made a point .... if not you will have performed on a par with your peers.

From Thursday afternoon, in case you missed it .....

The whole idea of CLP is for safety assessment taken from the long list of already assessed chemicals the cosmetic industry can use without the need to test. The 100kg regulation was upped to 1000kg as part of the process.... The UK have finished giving out licences for cosmetic testing within the UK.

"The first milestone was September 2004 when a complete ban on animal testing of finished cosmetic products was imposed in Europe. The European cosmetics industry had already moved away from testing cosmetic products on animals some time before this and in the UK animal testing has not taken place on both cosmetic products (since 1997) and their ingredients (since 1998). Voluntary initiatives by the UK cosmetics industry to surrender all licences were followed by announcements from the Home Office[1] that no more licences for cosmetics testing would be issued."

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

If you read all about CLP you will see your answer Mr ST. Every ingredient has to be traceable by law. If a company is using an ingredient that isn't listed it can't use it if there is no alternative test... It can't use data for an ingredient if it has been tested on an animal even if it's been tested for pharmaceutical purposes. Data can't be used from parent companies overseas.

Just because an ingredient has been tested on an animal in say the USA and a UK company uses the same ingredient but doesn't test on animals doesn't meant to say they test on animals. Th company in the USA test it on animals, the data from the USA can't be used for cosmetics in the UK

If ingredient A is used in a drug and tested on animals for the required toxicity determination under most legislations, can ingredient A then be used in a cosmetic product knowing it is safe because it was accepted safe as a drug ingredient? No "cosmetic ingredient" would have been tested since the tests were on a "drug ingredient" and all safety requirements would have been met for both uses.

Why or why not?

Since you did nto answer this one, try it this way

If ingredient A is used in cosmetics, which is supposedly not going to be required to be tested on animals for toxicity at some point, is also used in several other applications which also could harm humans, does it have to be tested for toxicity for the other applications or does the cosmetic testing regulation prohibit it?

I do not believe it does, but it seems you may disagree.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

If you read all about CLP you will see your answer Mr ST. Every ingredient has to be traceable by law. If a company is using an ingredient that isn't listed it can't use it if there is no alternative test... It can't use data for an ingredient if it has been tested on an animal even if it's been tested for pharmaceutical purposes. Data can't be used from parent companies overseas.

Please quote the portions you are referencing. I am not just taking your word for it and am not going to do the legwork to prove your claim.

Quote:

Just because an ingredient has been tested on an animal in say the USA and a UK company uses the same ingredient but doesn't test on animals doesn't meant to say they test on animals. Th company in the USA test it on animals, the data from the USA can't be used for cosmetics in the UK

References?

Quote:

This isn't an ethical vegan argument you know.

No, it is a real discussion and data is used if it is known.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

If you read all about CLP you will see your answer Mr ST. Every ingredient has to be traceable by law. If a company is using an ingredient that isn't listed it can't use it if there is no alternative test... It can't use data for an ingredient if it has been tested on an animal even if it's been tested for pharmaceutical purposes. Data can't be used from parent companies overseas.

You understand what the CLP is and there is no list that is disallowed?

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

If you read all about CLP you will see your answer Mr ST. Every ingredient has to be traceable by law. If a company is using an ingredient that isn't listed it can't use it if there is no alternative test... It can't use data for an ingredient if it has been tested on an animal even if it's been tested for pharmaceutical purposes. Data can't be used from parent companies overseas.

You understand what the CLP is and there is no list that is disallowed?

Stuff not used only in cosmetics still has to be tested for harm using animals, even if it is also used in cosmetics. Stuff used only in cosmetics are not supposed to be tested for harm on animals now. Not much stuff is used only in cosmetics so that generally covers only completed cosmetic products.

Do you get the point now?

If you read all about CLP you will see your answer Mr ST. Every ingredient has to be traceable by law. If a company is using an ingredient that isn't listed it can't use it if there is no alternative test... It can't use data for an ingredient if it has been tested on an animal even if it's been tested for pharmaceutical purposes. Data can't be used from parent companies overseas.

You understand what the CLP is and there is no list that is disallowed?

This new Regulation on classification, labelling and packaging ("CLP Regulation") contributes to the GHS aim that the same hazards will be described and labelled in the same way all around the world.

tommee wrote:

you are a joke.

I can see you have no rational discussion nor real evidence to provide in support of you beliefs. You are a waste of time and bandwidth at this point.

You do not even seem to comprehend the lists you tout are not what you believe they are. The list of general ingredients are only those not allowed or allowed with restrictions, not only what is allowed. I have pointed out that fact before and you failed to grasp it.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein